Differences in the B-mode imaging quality of ultrasound devices in the mid-price segment.

AIMS: A meaningful sonographic examination is decisively dependent on the B-scan quality of the ultrasound device. When selecting a suitable ultrasound device, B-scan quality should be an important purchase criterion. Although there is no generally accepted method to measure B-scan quality, we tried to evaluate comparable sonography devices from different manufacturers regarding B-scan quality. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We systematically assessed the B-scan quality in ultrasound devices of seven different manufacturers from the mid-price segment. All 7 ultrasound units tested had comparable equipment features and the purchase value of approximately $20,000. We recorded video sequences and compared B-mode image quality. We used both physiological sectional images and pathological findings from abdominal ultrasound. RESULTS: We identified three ultrasound units that scored significantly better in measuring the B-scan quality than the other devices. The Canon Xario 200, the General Electric Logiq P7 and the Mindray DC70 (in alphabetical order) were the units that outperformed all others.The differences identified were found to be statistically significant. A subgroup analysis showed that the contrasts in quality were more pronounced in near-field examinations than in examinations with greater penetration depth. CONCLUSIONS: There are considerable qualitative discrepancies in B-scan ultrasound devices despite being similar in terms of equipment and price. Our findings show that these differences are statistically detectable and likely clinically relevant.

Inter-System Variability of Eight Different Handheld Ultrasound (HHUS) Devices-A Prospective Comparison of B-Scan Quality and Clinical Significance in Intensive Care.

BACKGROUND: the use of handheld ultrasonography (HHUS) devices is well established in prehospital emergency diagnostics, as well as in intensive care settings. This is based on several studies in which HHUS devices were compared to conventional high-end ultrasonography (HEUS) devices. Nonetheless, there is limited evidence regarding potential variations in B-scan quality among HHUS devices from various manufacturers, and regarding whether any such differences hold clinical significance in intensive care medicine settings. METHODS: this study included the evaluation of eight HHUS devices sourced from diverse manufacturers. Ultrasound videos of five previously defined sonographic questions (volume status/inferior vena cava, pleural effusion, pulmonary B-lines, gallbladder, and needle tracking in situ) were recorded with all devices. The analogue recording of the same pathologies with a HEUS device served as gold standard. The corresponding findings (HHUS and HEUS) were then played side by side and evaluated by sixteen intensive care physicians experienced in sonography. The B-scan quality and the clinical significance of the HHUS were assessed using a five-point Likert scale (5 points = very good; 1 point = insufficient). RESULTS: both in assessing the quality of B-scans and in their ability to answer clinical questions, the HHUS achieved convincing results-regardless of the manufacturer. For example, only 8.6% (B-scan quality) and 9.8% (clinical question) of all submitted assessments received an "insufficient" rating. One HHUS device showed a significantly higher (p < 0.01) average points score in the assessment of B-scan quality (3.9 ± 0.65 points) and in the evaluation of clinical significance (4.03 ± 0.73 points), compared to the other devices. CONCLUSIONS: HHUS systems are able to reliably answer various clinical intensive care questions and are-while bearing their limitations in mind-an acceptable alternative to conventional HEUS devices. Irrespective of this, the present study was able to demonstrate relevant differences in the B-scan quality of HHUS devices from different manufacturers.

Increased Prevalence of Diastolic Heart Failure in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Correlates with Active Disease, but Not with Treatment Type.

OBJECTIVE: Although heart failure (HF) is a major cause of premature mortality, there is little information regarding its prevalence and associated risk factors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In this study, we evaluated the prevalence of HF in a community-based RA cohort. Further, we investigated the effect of RA activity and present treatment on HF rate and cardiac structure. METHODS: A diagnostic workup for HF according to the European Society of Cardiology recommendations was performed in 157 patients with RA fulfilling the American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism criteria (68% women, age 61 ± 13 yrs) from our outpatient clinic and in 77 age- and sex-matched controls. RESULTS: The prevalence of HF in patients with RA (24%) was unexpectedly high and differed significantly from the control sample (6%, p = 0.001). Diastolic HF was the dominant type (23% vs 6%), and clinical symptoms alone were of low diagnostic value. Active RA (28-joint Disease Activity Score ≥ 2.6: OR 3.4, 95% CI 1.3-9.8) was an independent risk factor of HF, as well as systemic inflammation (erythrocyte sedimentation rate > 16 mm/h: OR 5.4, 95% CI 2.1-16; C-reactive protein > 10 mg/l: OR 2.6, 95% CI 0.8-8.0) and RA duration > 10 years (OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.2-5.8). HF in RA was associated with concentric hypertrophy (48% vs 17%, p < 0.001) and reduced longitudinal strain (-17.2% vs -19.7%, p < 0.001). However, the prevalence of HF was equivalent between the treatment groups [conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) 25%, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors 22%, other biological DMARD 27%]. CONCLUSION: Recognition of all diastolic HF in RA requires a complex diagnostic approach. Active rather than inactive RA places patients at a higher risk for HF, whereas influence of RA treatment on HF risk needs to be elucidated in further studies.